NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5871108" data-attributes="member: 1544">Actually, it looks like you agree with me 100%, I just didn't mention the out of combat flaw because I was sticking to the topic of combat as much as possible.Many would disagree with you, and I personally am undecided on the topic. I'd like to see some alternatives to the 3e ability and level drain concepts. However, I must point out that I was also talking about stat boosting effects. The 'Bull's Strength' type spells being a key example. Anything that causes you to recalculate your entire character sheet mid battle is a problem.And such good rants they were too. I was trying to keep to concise statements, but given the option I'd just paste your rant straight into that particular point.I know what you're talking about, but one of the key elements of minions is that they have a reasonable chance of hitting. 3E common array + lower level monsters don't do very well in the 'to hit' area. The best bit about elites was the 'license' to just double something's hitpoints because it was a boss creature. As you correctly point out, Elite array and full HP more or less does that. The problem with the array modification is that it resulted in lots of work for the DM.I prefer the taste of attack vs defense, though now that you call me out on it, I can't really give a reason why. It just feels more elegant or consistent, probably because there are fewer save types (thinking of 2E in particular here). In my opinion; 'Attacks vs Defense' is to 'Saves vs DC' what 'Attack Bonus' is to 'THAC0'Agreed. My point was more around the fact that 'until next turn' and 'save ends' overlap a great deal. If 55% of 'save ends' effects only last 1 turn anyway... why not just make them 1 turn? I'd have preferred d4 turns or something like that. Maybe even a flat '3 turns'.Interesting solution. My preference is still to drop encounter powers entirely, but that doesn't actually invalidate your idea. I'm not sure how exactly you'd fluff that idea though. Maybe I'm just too stuck in my Vancian ways.An alternate solution that I've been toying with is to just give the players all the powers from their class, and let them only use 1 (of a given power level) per battle. Let them choose what's appropriate at the time. This solution wouldn't help with stopping two fighters from looking the same though.The schedule, and powers themselves.'Attack vs Defense, deal X damage and Y effect' is highly repetitive, regardless of whether you obtain them at the same rate as other classes.That would be a good start. I'm not sure it goes far enough.The thing with this is that it used to be consistent and later books broke the consistency.HP has always been a combination of health/fatigue/morale/luck. Magical cleric healing has also been a combination of health/fatigue/morale/luck. Introducing other forms of healing started to cause types of healing that couldn't be explained as a combination of all 4 of those things.It also went part way towards explaining the requirement for more healing at higher levels. I didn't ever see anyone argue in favour of this point, but if a high level character has been wounded, I don't see it as unreasonable that the god providing the healing would have to put more effort in to provide that character with restored luck. A character that has lived through so many battles has obviously relied on a lot of luck already. Replenishing it means tilting the world more in favour of that character.I'm not sure if that will make sense to anyone besides me.Yes, and cover things that are going to come up in all games so that they don't need improvisation.I thought it might be. I'm not a fan of spell points for DND.Yes, that's my preferred solution too. I like Vancian spell casting. My groups never encountered the 15 MAD. As noted earlier, I've actually seen more of this behaviour in 4E than I did in earlier editions.Extremely well argued sir. I'd XP you if I could.It appears that EL and myself both want DND combat to be process driven. I truly wonder what 5E will end up doing?</blockquote>

Verification